LWN: Comments on "Where 2.6.29 came from" http://lwn.net/Articles/324046/ This is a special feed containing comments posted to the individual LWN article titled "Where 2.6.29 came from". hourly 2 Ignore staging? http://lwn.net/Articles/324655/rss 2009-03-20T17:13:02+00:00 w_sang <div class="FormattedComment"> I wonder if commits to staging should be ignored for these statistics. It doesn't feel right IMHO.<br> </div> Sigh. http://lwn.net/Articles/324407/rss 2009-03-19T14:22:21+00:00 corbet It would appear that the code in gitdm which prints out the developer count has a bit of a bug. I've adjusted the number above. That was a sloppy mistake, and I apologize for the confusion - thanks for pointing it out. Where 2.6.29 came from http://lwn.net/Articles/324371/rss 2009-03-19T09:01:46+00:00 patrick_g Hi Jon,<p> You said "<i>Some 1420 developers took part in this cycle</i>" but if I look at the <a href="http://www.remword.com/kps_result/">Linux Kernel Patch Statistic</a> site I can see another number.<br> According to the site there was <a href="http://www.remword.com/kps_result/2_6_29_petop.html">only 1176</a> developpers during this cycle.<p> Why there is a large difference like this ?<br> We talk about a difference of more or less 244 developpers and I think this error bar is quite large.